A comparison of carbon market standards for REDD+ projects · A comparison of carbon market standards for REDD+ projects GERMANWATCH 3 Content List of tables and figures

THINK TANK & RESEARCH

ANALYSIS

A comparison of carbon market standards for REDD+ projects Lars Schmidt & Kristin Gerber

A comparison of carbon market standards for REDD+ projects GERMANWATCH

2

Imprint Authors: Lars Schmidt (independent consultant) & Kristin Gerber

Layout: Daniela Baum

Publisher: Germanwatch e.V. Office Bonn: Office Berlin: Kaiserstr. 201 Stresemannstr. 72 D-53113 Bonn D-10963 Berlin Phone +49 (0)228 / 60 492-0, Fax -19 Phone +49 (0)30 / 28 88 356-0, Fax -1

Internet: www.germanwatch.org E-mail: [email protected]

Version 1.3, January 15, 2016

Purchase order number: 16-1-01

This publication can be downloaded at: www.germanwatch.org/en/12479

This project is part of the International Climate Initiative. The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety supports this initiative on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag

We thank for the constructive input of Dietrich Brockhagen (atmosfair), Norbert Gorißen (BMUB) and Christoph Bals (Germanwatch)


3

Content

List of tables and figures ...................................................................................................... 4

Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... 5

Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6

Results ................................................................................................................................. 7

1 Background and rationale ........................................................................................... 9

1.1 Goal and structure ................................................................................................................................... 9

1.2 Definitions .............................................................................................................................................. 10

2 Principles and expectations towards REDD+ standards ............................................. 11

2.1 BMUB/IKI ................................................................................................................................................ 11

2.2 Germanwatch ........................................................................................................................................ 11

2.3 The private sector perspective – evolution of REDD+ standard use ........................................... 12

3 Parameterization of expectations and principles towards REDD+ projects ................ 15

4 Overview of standards for REDD+ projects and selection for analysis ........................ 18

5 Analysis results – performance of REDD+ standards .................................................. 21

6 Discussion & conclusion ............................................................................................ 25

7 References and standard documents ............................................................................ 28

8 Annex ........................................................................................................................ 30

8.1 Analysis table ........................................................................................................................................ 30


4

List of tables and figures

Table 1: Criteria & indicators for analyzing REDD+ standards .................................................. 16

Table 2: Overview and selection of REDD+ standards ................................................................ 19

Figure 1: Evolution of REDD+ standard use ................................................................................... 13

Figure 2: Evolution of combined REDD+ standards use ............................................................. 13

Figure 3: Comparison of each Standard’s score by category in percent ................................ 21

Figure 4: Comparison of each Standard’s score for the criterion climate integrity .............. 22

Figure 5: Comparison of each Standard’s score for the criterion ................................................ biodiversity conservation .................................................................................................................. 22

Figure 6: Comparison of each Standard’s score for the criterion human and community rights, stakeholder participation and sustainable community development ....................... 23

Figure 7: Comparison of each Standard’s score for the criterion project .................................. viability and jurisdictional compatibility ....................................................................................... 23

Figure 8: Comparison of different combinations of carbon + co-benefit standards ............ 24


5

Abbreviations

ACR American Carbon Registry

AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use

A/R Afforestation / Reforestation

BMUB German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Build-ing and Nuclear Safety

CCBS Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent

GHG Greenhouse Gas

IFM Improved Forest Management

IKI International Climate Initiative

REDD+ Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; and the sustainable management of forests, conservation of forest carbon stocks and enhancement of forest carbon stocks

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

VCS Verified Carbon Standard

VCS JNR Verified Carbon Standard Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ requirements

Standards analyzed

ACR The American Carbon Registry Forest Carbon Project Standard including the ACR Nested REDD+ Standard

GSF Gold Standard Foundation Land Use and Forests Framework & AR Re-quirements

NFS Natural Forest Standard

Plan Vivo Plan Vivo Standard

RS Rainforest Standard

VCS Verified Carbon Standard and its AFOLU requirements, including the VCS Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ requirements

CCBS Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards

SCS Social Carbon Standard


6

Summary

This report provides an analysis of REDD+ project standards against expectations and principles set by the BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch. atmosfair contributed to this report with its experience in the field of MRV and climate integrity of offset projects. The goal of the report is to provide a clear underlying guidance for the use of one or several REDD+ standards for use by the International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the BMUB and beyond.

Whereas REDD+ standards consist generally i.a. of principles, processes and rules for the projects, the actual implementation of REDD+ projects may differ from these. The implementation of pro-jects is however beyond the scope and thus not part of the study at hand1.

We set out by describing the expectations and principles of BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch with regard to REDD+ projects/REDD+ standards. Based on these, criteria and indicators for the follow-ing analysis are developed. We differentiate between four broad criteria, namely:

1. Climate Integrity

2. Biodiversity Conservation

3. Human and community rights, stakeholder participation and sustainable community de-velopment

4. Long-term project viability and compatibility with UNFCCC and jurisdictional approaches

Each criterion may include several categories, which in turn include indicators. We develop a total of 32 indicators.

We attribute varying scores to indicators based on subjectively perceived importance. Indicator scores range from 1 (positive aspect) to 10 (aspect of outstanding importance).

We then provide an overview of available REDD+ standards and select a subset of standards for the following analysis, based on the standard’s suitability for application in IKI projects. The fol-lowing eight standards are pre-selected and then analyzed in detail:

1. The American Carbon Registry Forest Carbon Project Standard including the ACR Nested REDD+ Standard

2. Gold Standard Foundation Land Use and Forests Framework & AR Requirements

3. The Natural Forest Standard

4. The Plan Vivo Standard

5. The Rainforest Standard

6. The Verified Carbon Standard and its AFOLU requirements, including the VCS Jurisdic-tional and Nested REDD+ requirements

7. The Climate Community and Biodiversity Standards

8. The Social Carbon Standard

11 Examples for critics on allegedly controversially implemented REDD+ projects in the context of carbon standards can be found at e.g. http://www.redd-monitor.org, http://wrm.org.uy/books-and-briefings/redd-a-collection-of-conflicts-contradictions-and-lies, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_emissions_from_deforestation_and_forest_degradation, http://www.cifor.org/redd-case-book


7

Results

Under the criterion ‘climate integrity’, both VCS and ACR score highest with approximately 85%, while the next in line do only reach slightly above 50% or less.

With regard to the criterion ‘biodiversity conservation’ the Plan Vivo Standard, Natural Forest Standard, CCBS and Gold Standard achieve full points, followed by the Rainforest Standard and the Social Carbon Standard with approx. 75%.

Under the criterion ‘human and community rights, stakeholder participation & sustainable com-munity development’, the Gold Standard scores top with almost 100%, closely followed by the CCBS and Plan Vivo Standard with approx. 91% and the Natural Forest Standard with approx. 81%.

Under the criterion ‘project viability and UNFCCC/jurisdictional compatibility’, the differences among standards are not as high. The VCS reaches the highest score with approx. 72%, closely followed by the CCBS with almost 70%. Next are the Plan Vivo Standard and the Natural Forest Standard.

By comparison, when combining different ‘pure’ carbon standards (VCS, ACR) with pure co-benefit standards (CCBS, Social Carbon), a much higher total score is achieved. Here, VCS + CCBS scores highest with 94%, followed closely by ACR+CCBS with 88%. VCS + Social Carbon reach 70%, ACR + Social Carbon 63%.

The Figure below provides an overview of the strength and weaknesses of each standard across the four criteria.

Comparison of each Standard’s score by category in percent

0,0%

20,0%

40,0%

60,0%

80,0%

100,0%

VCS AFOLU (incl. VCS JNR)

ACR Forest Carbon Project Std (incl. ACR Nested REDD+

Std

Plan Vivo Standard

Natural Forest Standard

Rainforest Standard

Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards

Social Carbon

Gold Standard Foundation

LUF Framework &

AR Req.

Climate Integrity

Biodiversity

conservation

Human and community

rights, stakeholder participation &

sustainable community development

Project viability &

UNFCCC / jurisdictional compatability

Source: Authors’ illustration


8

No standard reaches more than 80% across all criteria

Based on the above results, we conclude that no standard alone fulfils the expectations of BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch i.e. no standard reaches more than 80% across all criteria.

The VCS and ACR are the only standards that achieve >80% in the category climate integrity. Consequently, these two standards are the only two that are acceptable to BMUB/IKI and Ger-manwatch with regard to the criteria for carbon accounting.

However, the absence of strong provisions for biodiversity conservation, human and community rights, stakeholder participation and community development and other aspects that aim to guarantee long-term project viability do not make them a good choice if one is looking at benefits beyond carbon, at least not as standalone standards.

Both in the categories ‘biodiversity conservation’ and ‘human and community rights, stakeholder participation and sustainable community development’, only the Plan Vivo Standard, the Natural Forest Standard, the CCBS and the Gold Standard reach the level of ambition set by BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch.

Combination of existing standards proves better, but still not sufficient

When combined with the CCBS, the VCS and ACR provide the relative best results in our anal-ysis (VCS + CCBS is only marginally better than ACR + CCBS). As a result, we suggest the use of either VCS + CCBS or ACR + CCBS for use by the IKI of the BMUB or any other party financing REDD+ projects.

However, based on our experience, VCS + CCBS validation requires projects of scale. Consequent-ly, it is suggested that for smaller projects, IKI could allow the use of Plan Vivo with additional car-bon accounting requirements to ensure climate integrity.

Additional provisions for integration into jurisdictional approaches and con-sideration of human rights needed

Recommendations that emerge from the analysis for the application of standards for projects under the International Climate Initiative are provided in a separate document. These recommen-dations were jointly developed by BMUB and Germanwatch.

They also address two remaining major issues, where expectations by BMUB/IKI and Ger-manwatch are not met by any of the considered standard. These are the mandatory integration of projects into jurisdictional or national REDD+ programmes; and the consideration of human rights in project planning and implementation.


9

1 Background and rationale

The International Climate Initiative (IKI) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Na-ture Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) is a significant donor of forest mitigation projects. Annually, approx. 60 Million Euros are spent on REDD+ projects.

The IKI acknowledges the need of REDD+ projects to produce and sell emission reductions – lim-ited to the voluntary carbon market only – as a means to ensure the projects continuity beyond the IKI support phase. As such, IKI-funded projects may generate (verified) emissions reductions only for non-compliance markets under any REDD+ standard that they deem appropriate, the only condition being that such verified emission reductions (carbon credits) can only be issued once the IKI support phase had ended.

At the same time, it must be mentioned that BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch see the sale of non-compliance carbon credits (even at the highest standards, which are not yet ready available) only as a transitional means to an end, which is to establish lasting, sustainable and low-emission live-lihoods in the land-use sector. As such, the sale of non-compliance carbon credits could potential-ly provide the necessary short to medium-term investment to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and transition from originally destructive to such lasting, more sustainable and low emission livelihoods.

Up to date, the IKI does require high quality REDD+ activities but not the use of any particular REDD+ standard. Considering the significant differences in quality among REDD+ standards, this represents a gap in light of BMUB position e.g. on the use of forest-sector emission reductions for compliance under the UNFCCC or REDD+ safeguards.

1.1 Goal and structure

The goal of this concept paper is to fill this gap, by providing clear analysis and guidance on the use of a particular set of forest carbon standards to be used by REDD+ projects/programs in gen-eral and IKI projects/programs in particular. These analysis and guidance are the basis for recom-mendations (provided in a separate document) that should culminate into a directive proposed jointly by BMUB and Germanwatch.

The structure of the paper is as follows:

1. We set out by describing the expectations and principles of BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch with regard to REDD+ projects/REDD+ standards. Based on these, criteria and indicators for the following analysis are developed.

2. We then provide an overview of available REDD+ standards and select a subset of stand-ards for analysis.

3. We analyze REDD+ standards with regard to the criteria and indicators listed under step 1 above. Here, we also draw on available literature, as there are a number of publications, which have compared REDD+ standards in particular with regard to their social and envi-ronmental benefits.

4. Based on the analysis, BMUB and Germanwatch draw recommendations for the use of these forest carbon standards (in a separate paper).


10

1.2 Definitions

In the following, we provide definitions for two terms that are often not well defined but key to the understanding of this report. The definitions are made for the purpose of this report only. By defin-ing them here (and not other terms as well), no particular importance is attributed to these terms.

REDD+ Standard

The term ‘REDD+ Standard’ here is used in a very wide sense, including rules and procedures for GHG programs and mechanisms such as e.g. the CDM. The term standards is thus defined as ‘any regulatory document, which sets out rules and procedures for accounting of GHG emissions and removals (and co-benefits) from any kind of REDD+ activities, and which can lead to a valida-tion/certification of these activities’.2

We deliberately use the term ‘REDD+ standard’ instead of ‘forest carbon standard’ to demonstrate the link to REDD+ under the UNFCCC.

Climate integrity

For the purpose of this report, climate integrity is defined as follows: Emission reductions generat-ed by projects must be additional, real, measurable, verifiable and permanent. Calculation of net GHG emission reductions must be conservative, account for all relevant carbon pools and GHGs and use independently validated methodologies, account for non-permanence risk, leakage and uncertainty. Standards must ensure permanence of emission reductions during the crediting peri-od or at least 50 years and – to the extent possible – beyond. Credits issued must not be used for compliance under the UNFCCC nor any regional or (sub-) national GHG program.

(For other criteria we use the definitions used by the different standards).

2 The analysis of REDD+ standards excludes those that would allow the use of forest carbon credits in the compliance market.


11

2 Principles and expectations towards REDD+ standards

If a standard is to be recommended by the BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch, it should meet the high-est demands in terms of carbon accounting and thus climate integrity, but also with regard to recognition of human and community rights, stakeholder participation and community develop-ment as well as environmental safeguards. All of the three players have in common that they see forests as complex ecosystems with various functions and services to support society. For that reason, they see the necessity that REDD+ standards ensure that benefits for biodiversity conserva-tion and social wellbeing are addressed equally with CO2 emission reductions. None of the three actors supports a REDD+ standard that would allow the use of forest carbon credits in the compli-ance market.

The following section summarizes on top of those superior criteria further expectations and prin-ciples of the three players with regard to REDD+ projects/programs that are of particular interest to the individual actor and its scope of work.

All expectations/principles are provided 'as is'3.

2.1 BMUB/IKI

As described above BMUB/IKI supports only standards with the highest quality possible. While the IKI is willing to open the door for more private sector involvement in REDD+ projects and in this context also for the generation of non-compliance REDD+ credits after the IKI support phase has ended, it is neither the aim to open the door to all kinds of private sector cooperation nor to do this at the expense of ecological and social aspects. More private sector participation in REDD+ projects is welcome, but only if it meets the high standards as set out by BMUB/IKI.

Particular issues of importance to BMUB/IKI are the application of Free Prior and Informed Con-sent (FPIC) and in general the consideration of the Cancún Safeguards for REDD+ as well as the Warsaw REDD+ Framework. At present, BMUB/IKI sees the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) in com-bination with the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standard (CCBS) as a good option for REDD+ projects. However, BMUB/IKI is open for updated options or additional criteria on top of VCS and CCBS, should these not meet the highest requirements.

2.2 Germanwatch

Based on the superior criteria described above, Germanwatch supports the REDD+ approach for two major reasons, which are of vital importance for Germanwatch as an organization:

REDD+ is currently the most promising approach to significantly reduce GHG emissions in the AFOLU sector if the drivers of deforestation are addressed as well; and

REDD+ provides the opportunity for an alternative development pathway in the land use sector to developing countries and countries in transition.

3 They were provided to the author in writing or verbally.


12

Based on these two perspectives on REDD+, quality assurance criteria can be determined for REDD+ projects. For Germanwatch, these two perspectives and consequently the criteria for a REDD+ standard as well are of equal importance.

Principles and expectations towards REDD+ projects in terms of climate protection are:

Measurable and verifiable emission reductions and removals,

Steady and stepwise REDD+ implementation towards national REDD+ implementation and accounting,

Long-term GHG reductions,

No ecological leakage, i.e. displacement of deforestation and forest degradation to for-ests or other ecosystems with less carbon stocks and

Adherence to at least the no-harm principle, i.e. REDD+ projects must not have negative social and environmental impacts and must always follow a human-rights based ap-proach.

Principles and expectations towards REDD+ projects in terms of alternative development perspectives are:

Long-term change of land-use activities, which leads to a transformation of the relevant sectors causing deforestation and forest degradation, i.e. a permanent reduction of the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation,

In conjunction with the above, support to the building of alternative sustainable low-emission livelihoods and

No displacement of environmental problems to another level. To give an example: Inten-sification of agriculture could reduce deforestation, but intensive use of energy intensive fertilizers could have serious impacts on aquatic ecosystems and drinking water quality.

2.3 The private sector perspective – evolution of REDD+ standard use

This section provides a brief overview on the evolution of REDD+ standard use. This is to reflect the preference of the private sector with regard to REDD+ standards over time. The analysis focuses on those standards, which are subsequently analyzed in depth (though for some recent standards no market information was available).

Figure 1 shows the evolution of individual REDD+ standards use over 7 points in time, while Figure 2 shows the evolution of combined REDD+ standards use (carbon + co-benefit standard) over the same time period. We chose the series ‘state of the forest carbon market’ from 2009 to 2014 as the database for this analysis. It needs to be noted, that the reporting on standards has not been en-tirely consistent in terms of categories over time, and thus the results may not be fully accurate. Further, ‘state of the forest carbon market’ relies on results from a survey with varying levels of participation. In consequence, a variation in annual figures may also be the result of varying levels of survey participation.

The analysis clearly shows the following:

1. Until 2010, the use of individual standards was more balanced. Notably, the CCBS played a major role as a standalone standard, and Plan Vivo – today a niche standard – was still


13

at eye level with the VCS. In terms of combined standard use (carbon + co-benefit stand-ard), until 2010, many projects undertook triple validation, using VCS, ACR and the CCBS.

2. From 2010 onwards, the picture changes significantly and the VCS, both as an individual standard (+/- 50% individual market share) as well as in combination with CCBS (+/- 70% market share for combined standard use), starts to dominate the standard landscape. Plan Vivo and Carbon Fix (today part of the Gold Standard) as well as the ACR play only a niche role, while the CCBS as a standalone standard disappears completely.

3. As a co-benefit standard, the social carbon standard only plays a negligible role through-out the entire analysis period.

From our perspective, this analysis clearly underlines today’s general preference of the private sector for using the VCS – and in case of additional co-benefit certification – the VCS in combina-tion with CCBS.

Figure 1: Evolution of REDD+ standard use

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Until

2007

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Market share

VCS

ACR

Plan Vivo

Carbon Fix

Gold Standard

CCBS

Sources: Authors’ illustration based on the reports ‘state of the forest carbon markets’ for the years until 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. The non-visibility of some standards (during one or several years) means that either the Standard was not recorded or that it had zero or close to zero market share.

Figure 2: Evolution of combined REDD+ standards use


14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Until

2007

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Market share

CCBS + VCS + ACR

VCS + CCBS

Social Carbon

Sources: Authors’ illustration based on the reports ‘state of the forest carbon markets’ for the years until 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. The non-visibility of the Social Carbon standard (during one or several years) means that either the Standard was not recorded or that it had zero or close to zero market share.


15

3 Parameterization of expectations and principles towards REDD+ projects

This section attempts to parameterize the principles and expectations voiced by BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch. This is done by defining criteria and indicators against which standards can be assessed relatively objectively. We define the following four broad criteria:

1. Climate integrity,

2. Biodiversity conservation,

3. Human and community rights, stakeholder participation and sustainable community de-velopment as well as

4. Long-term project viability and compatibility with UNFCCC and jurisdictional approaches.

The first three criteria are based on the general expectations towards REDD+ projects, i.e. that they general reduce emissions while contributing to biodiversity conservation and community wellbe-ing, while ensuring broad stakeholder participation and recognition of both community and hu-man rights. The latter criterion includes the necessity of a social impact assessment on social, cultural and economic aspects as well as to human rights and rights to lands territories and re-sources.

We add a fourth ‘mixed’ criterion, which covers issues of long-term project viability and compati-bility with UNFCCC and/or jurisdictional approaches.

For each of these criteria, a varying number of indicators are defined (see Table 1 below). These are to some extent based on previous comparisons of standards (Merger and Williams 2008, Held et al. 2011, Merger and Pistorius 2011, Roe et al. 2013). However, in comparison to some of these studies, we have reduced the number of indicators as we believe that many aspects – such as e.g. baselines, use of methodologies, registries – are common practice today across most if not all REDD+ standards.

Even though selected issues maybe of different importance to BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch, over-all they seek the highest standards possible for REDD+ projects. Overall, the expectation of all three actors is that a standard fulfils at least 80% in the first three categories ‘climate integrity’, ‘biodiversity conservation’ and ‘human and community rights, stakeholder participation and sus-tainable community development’.

In consequence, we set a score for each fulfilled indicator to mirror its subjective relative im-portance and to arrive at an indicative ranking as a result of the analysis. Overall, we attempt to balance the maximum possible score for each criterion, in order to underline that REDD+ projects should not only generate emission reductions but equally contribute to biodiversity conservation and social wellbeing, respect human and community rights while meeting some further overarch-ing goals.

The following points are given:

10 points for aspects of outstanding importance,

points for very important aspects,


16

points for important aspects,

1 point for positive aspects,

0 points if an indicator is not fulfilled.

A maximum score of 155 points can be achieved, of which 64 can be achieved under the criterion ‘climate integrity’, 21 points under ‘biodiversity conservation’, 44 points under ‘human and com-munity rights, stakeholder participation and sustainable community development’ and 26 points under ‘Long-term project viability and compatibility with UNFCCC and jurisdictional approaches’.

Table 1: Criteria & indicators for analyzing REDD+ standards

Criteria Category Indicators Score

No Yes

Clim

ate

Inte

grity

Additionality The standard demands an ‘additionality’ test using an invest-ment analysis method

0 5

Permanence The standard demands a non-permanence risk analysis and consequent deductions for non-permanence risk when calculat-ing net GHG emission reductions

0 5

Projects with a high non-permanence risk cannot undergo vali-dation

0 3

Upfront crediting is strictly limited or not allowed 0 5

The standard operates a (pooled) buffer account or uses other safeguards, meant to provide permanence during the crediting period.

0 5

The standard undertakes measures to reduce the risk of non-permanence beyond the crediting period

0 3

The standard ensures permanence beyond the project crediting period

0 10

Leakage The standard demands accountability of activity leakage and consequent deductions for activity leakage when calculating net GHG emission reductions

0 5

The standard demands accountability of market leakage and consequent deductions for market leakage when calculating net GHG emission reductions

0 5

General carbon accounting quality assurance

The standard demands independently validated methodologies for GHG accounting

0 3

The standard demands independent third party validation and verification of monitoring results

3

The standard demands the application of the principle of con-servativeness (for baseline establishment, etc.)

0 3

The standard demands an uncertainty assessment and conse-quent deductions for uncertainty when calculating net GHG emission reductions

0 3

The standard demands the inclusion of all relevant carbon pools and GHGs, unless they are deemed ‘de minimis’

0 3

The standard demands that double counting is not allowed 0 3


17

Criteria Category Indicators Score

No YesBi

odiv

ersi

ty c

onse

rvat

ion

Biodiversity impacts

The standard demands at least a ‘no harm’ approach to biodi-versity conservation

0 1

The standard demands a biodiversity or environmental impact assessment and in consequence the development and imple-mentation of a plan to mitigate these impacts

0 5

The standard demands the generation of additional measure-able benefits for biodiversity conservation (includes the devel-opment of a biodiversity baseline and project scenario)

0 10

The standard demands the measuring, reporting and verification of biodiversity benefits

0 5

Hum

an a

nd c

omm

unity

righ

ts, s

take

hold

er p

artic

ipat

ion

and

sus-

tain

able

com

mun

ity d

evel

opm

ent

Community impacts & recognition of human rights

The standard demands a ‘no harm’ approach to community development

0 1

The standard explicitly demands the recognition of human rights 0 3

The standard demands a social impact assessment which should include the identification of vulnerable groups and the potential for human rights violations and in consequence the development and implementation of a plan to mitigate these impacts

0 5

The standard demands the generation of additional measure-able benefits for community development (includes the devel-opment of a community baseline and project scenario)

0 10

The standard demands the measuring, reporting and verification of community benefits

0 5

Stakeholder & community process

The standard demands the application of free, prior and in-formed consent during REDD+ project development and imple-mentation

0 10

The standard demands a public, inclusive and transparent pro-cess for project development and implementation

0 5

The standard demands the establishment of a grievance redress & feedback mechanism to solve disputes, including the option to bring forward any infringements and violations of human rights for legal prosecution.

0 5

Proj

ect v

iabi

lity

& UN

FCCC

/juris

dict

iona

l co

mpa

tibili

ty

Other The standard demands a detailed management plan to show how the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation are cred-ibly addressed.

0 5

The standard demands proof of clear carbon ownership (land registry, lease contract, etc.)

0 5

The standard demands a risk analysis and risk management plan 0 3

Jurisdictional & UNFCCC

The standard (association) offers a jurisdictional framework for nesting projects or any other framework that allows for integra-tion of projects into larger scale REDD+ programmes

0 3

The standard demands adherence to and covers the Cancún safeguards on REDD+

0 5

For Jurisdictional frameworks: The standard supports integration with UNFCCC COP decisions on REDD+ (e.g. Warsaw Framework for REDD-plus)

0 5


18

4 Overview of standards for REDD+ projects and selection for analysis

This section provides an overview of standards available for REDD+ projects. Based on their geo-graphic and project type coverage, standards are then selected for further analysis in section 5.

IKI supports projects and programs across a wide range of developing countries and countries in transition and – in terms of REDD+ projects – supports various types of activities that lead to re-duced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation as well as removals from increases in forest carbon stocks. As such, standards are selected on the basis of the following criteria:

Broad geographic coverage: Standards should be globally applicable

Broad project type coverage: Standards should cover several project types (e.g. afforesta-tion/reforestation, forest management, avoided deforestation and forest degradation, agroforestry, etc.)

Functional/Operational: Standards must be functional/operational. This criterion is in-troduced in light of the fact that several GHG programs have ceased operations, while some standards have not yet seen wide applicability since their founding.

The standard does not allow for the generation of compliance offsets from AFOLU pro-jects. Compliance offsets are defined as any offsets/credits/emission reduction certifi-cates which may be used under the UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol or any regional, nation or sub-national GHG programme or emission trading scheme (e.g. EU-ETS, California Cap & Trade system, etc.).4

In consequence, carbon standards or rather GHG programs, as e.g. the Australian ’Carbon Farming Initiative’ or the US-based ‚Climate Action Reserve’ and its Forest Protocol are excluded here, as they have been developed towards an application in industrialized countries only. It is assumed that such standards – with respect to applicability criteria and/or data demand – make their use in developing countries or countries in transition difficult if not impossible. Further, emission reduc-tion certificates from these standards can be used for compliance under national or regional GHG programmes.

Table 2 below provides an overview of the standards to be selected for further analysis.

4 This may be subject to change and is not entirely dependent on the Standard, as GHG programs and emission trading schemes may allow for the use of offsets from certain standards.


19

Table 2: Overview and selection of REDD+ standards

Standard Broad geographic coverage

Broad project type coverage

Functional/ Operational

Generation of compliance offsets

Included or Excluded

American Carbon Registry (ACR) For-est Carbon Project Standard & ACR Nested REDD+ Standard

Yes Yes Yes No Included

Brasil Mata Viva No (only Brazilian Amazon)

Yes Yes No Excluded

Carbon Farming Initiative

No (only Australia)

Yes Yes Yes Excluded

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)

Yes No (only A/R) Future of the CDM unclear; Methodolo-gies accepted under other standards

Yes Excluded

Climate Action Reserve Forest Protocol

No (only USA) Yes Yes Yes Excluded

Global Conservation Standard

Yes No, only con-servation

Questionable, no project registry

No Excluded

Gold Standard Framework for Land Use and Forests

Yes Yes, but to date only A/R methodologies

To date only for A/R

No Included


Yes Yes, though it excludes plan-tations and forest mgmt projects

Yes No Included

Pacific Carbon Standard

No (only British Columbia, Canada)

No (only IFM projects)

Operation ceased

Yes Excluded

Panda Standard No (only China)

No (to date only A/R methodolo-gies)

Questionable, only one project since 2010

Could not be determined

Excluded


20

Standard Broad geographic coverage

Broad project type coverage

Functional/ Operational

Generation of compliance offsets

Included or Excluded

Peru Carbon Fund Forestry Standard

No (Peruvian Amazon only)

No, A/R only No (no stand-ard document available to data)

Could not be determined

Excluded

Permanent Forest Sink Initiative

No (only New Zealand)

No (only A/R) Yes Yes Excluded

Plan Vivo Standard Yes Yes Yes No Included

Rainforest Standard

Focus on 5 Amazon countries

Yes Yes No Included

Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), AFOLU Require-ments & VCS Juris-dictional and Nest-ed REDD+ Require-ments


Woodland Carbon Code

No (only UK) No (only A/R) Yes Could not be determined

Excluded

Co-benefit standards

Climate, Communi-ty & Biodiversity Standards


Social Carbon Yes Yes Yes No Included

As a result, the following standards are analyzed in detail:

1. The American Carbon Registry Forest Carbon Project Standard including the ACR Nested REDD+ Standard

2. Gold Standard Foundation Land Use and Forests Framework & AR Requirements

3. The Natural Forest Standard

4. The Plan Vivo Standard

5. The Rainforest Standard

6. The Verified Carbon Standard and its AFOLU requirements, including the VCS Jurisdic-tional and Nested REDD+ requirements

7. The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards

8. The Social Carbon Standard


21

5 Analysis results – performance of REDD+ standards

The following figures 3-7 show the results of our analysis. We compare the score of each standard by criteria, i.e. by climate integrity, biodiversity conservation, human and community rights, stake-holder participation & sustainable community development and project viability & UNFCCC/juris-dictional compatibility.

The result of has to be read with caution, as no distinction is made between pure carbon stand-ards, full standards (covering both carbon accounting and co-benefits) and pure co-benefit stand-ards. To account for this, we do also provide a score for the combination of VCS + CCBS, VCS + Social Carbon, ACR + CCBS and ACR + Social Carbon. See the discussion section on how to inter-pret the results.

Figure 3 provides an overview of how well the analyzed REDD+ standards match the four criteria established in section 3 above.

Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 provide a ranked comparison of the standards by each of the four criteria.

Figure 8 shows the ranking for different combinations of carbon & co-benefits standards respec-tively.

Figure 3: Comparison of each Standard’s score by category in percent

0,0%

20,0%

40,0%

60,0%

80,0%

100,0%

VCS AFOLU (incl. VCS JNR)

ACR Forest Carbon Project Std (incl. ACR Nested REDD+

Std

Plan Vivo Standard


Rainforest Standard

Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards

Social Carbon

Gold Standard Foundation

LUF Framework &

AR Req.

Climate Integrity

Biodiversity

conservation

Human and community

rights, stakeholder participation &

sustainable community development

Project viability &

UNFCCC / jurisdictional compatability



22

Figure 4: Comparison of each Standard’s score for the criterion climate integrity

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

VCS ACR Natural Forest Std

Rainforest Std

GSF Plan Vivo CCBS Social Carbon

Score

Climate Integrity


Figure 5: Comparison of each Standard’s score for the criterion biodiversity conservation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Plan Vivo Natural Forest Std

CCBS GSF Rainforest Std

Social Carbon

ACR VCS

Score

Biodiversity Conservation



23

Figure 6: Comparison of each Standard’s score for the criterion human and community rights, stakeholder participation and sustainable community development

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

GSF CCBS Plan Vivo Natural Forest Std

Rainforest Std

Social Carbon

ACR VCS

Score

Human and community rights, stakeholder participation & sustainable community development


Figure 7: Comparison of each Standard’s score for the criterion project viability and jurisdictional compati-bility

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

VCS CCBS Plan Vivo Natural Forest Std

GSF ACR Rainforest Std

Social Carbon

Score

Project viability & UNFCCC / Jurisdictional Compatibility



24

Under the criterion ‘climate integrity’, both VCS and ACR score highest with approx. 85%. The Nat-ural Forest Standard, Rainforest Standard and Gold Standard and rank in the middle, with approx. 55%, 52% and 50% respectively. The CCBS and Plan Vivo Standard reach above 30%, with the Social Carbon Standard being at the very end with approx. 5%. With regard to the criterion ‘biodi-versity conservation’ the picture – not surprisingly – looks quite the reverse. Here, the Plan Vivo, Natural Forest Standard, CCBS and Gold Standard reach full points, followed by the Rainforest Standard and Social Carbon Standard with approx. 75%. VCS reaches 5%, ACR cannot claim any points at all.

Under the criterion ‘human and community rights, stakeholder participation & sustainable com-munity development’, the Gold Standard scores top with almost 100%, closely followed by the CCBS and Plan Vivo with approx. 91%. Then come the Natural Forest Standard (81%) and the Rain-forest Standard (approx. 70%), and the Social Carbon Standard (approx. 45%). At the bottom end, ACR reaches approx. 11%, VCS 2%.

Under the criterion ‘project viability and UNFCCC/jurisdictional compatibility’, the differences among standards are high as well. No standard scores 100% here. The VCS reaches the highest score with approx. 72%, closely followed by the CCBS with almost 70%. Next are the Plan Vivo and Natural Forest Standard (50%); followed by the Gold Standard and ACR (both 30%), the Rainforest Standard (20%) and the Social Carbon Standard (0%).

By comparison, when combining different ‘pure’ carbon standards (VCS, ACR) with pure co-benefit standards (CCBS, Social Carbon), a much higher total score is achieved (see Figure 8 below). Here, VCS + CCBS scores highest with 94%, followed closely by ACR+CCBS with 88%. VCS + Social Carbon reach 70%, ACR + Social Carbon 63%.

Figure 8: Comparison of different combinations of carbon + co-benefit standards

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

VCS + CCBS ACR + CCBS VCS + Social Carbon ACR + Social Carbon

Score



25

6 Discussion & conclusion

The above analysis is considered as a comparison of different REDD+ standards which are as-sessed against a set of principles and criteria voiced by BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch. Some of our findings are supported by previous comparisons of REDD+ standards (see e.g. Merger 2008, Merger and Williams 2008; Held et al. 2011; Merger and Pistorius, 2011; Fraisse and Germanis 2012; Roe et al. 2013). Merger (2008) and Merger and Williams (2008) found that e.g. VCS provides the best re-sults with regard to permanence, while the CCBS provides the highest and Carbon Fix and Plan Vivo basic co-benefits (The Carbon Fix Standard has been acquired by the Gold Standard in 2012, and the Gold Standard AR requirements have been built on the Carbon Fix Standard).

Nevertheless, the above results should be interpreted with the following in mind:

1. Though the selection of criteria & indicators has been informed by previous literature on standards (Merger and Williams 2008; Merger and Pistorius 2011; Roes et al. 2013) and care was given to formulate them relatively broadly, it was also based on experience with certain well-known standards such as e.g. the VCS and the CCBS. This may have biased results towards favouring these rather well-known standards. This is confirmed insofar, as these standards score well in their respective focus areas (e.g. VCS under the ‘climate in-tegrity’ criterion). However, less known standards such as e.g. the ACR, Plan Vivo, the Nat-ural Forest Standard and the Gold Standard Land Use and Forests Framework score equally well in their respective focus areas. Further, one could have added further criteria and indicators. In comparison to previous studies we reduced the amount of indicators, as many of these indicators are nowadays common practices across all standards (e.g. baseline scenarios, use of methodologies).

2. The formulated indicators or the standard documents provide in some cases room for in-terpretation. Other experts may thus come to a different conclusion whether an indicator was fulfilled or not. In some cases, it was also difficult for the authors to decide whether or not an indicator was fulfilled or not. Since the assessment differentiates only between 'fulfilled' and 'not fulfilled', partial fulfillment of an indicator was not captured. Other ex-perts may thus come to a different conclusion whether an indicator was fulfilled or not.

3. The score attributed to the different indicators is based on subjectively felt relative im-portance. Different experts / organizations may – or probably would – attribute differ-ent scores.

4. Further, the scoring is based on the analysis of standard documents. In order to conclude that the scoring truly reflects the quality of the standards, one would have to assume that the standard documents are rigorously put into practice and validation and verification is equally rigorous. In the authors’ opinion this is unlikely to be the case though, even across one standards’ project portfolio, as the validation and verification bodies and their ex-perts will differ from project to project. Finally, the quality of some standards may be under- or overestimated in our results. A generic analysis such as this does favour standards with generic approaches, such as the VCS, ACR or CCBS. Standards like Plan Vivo, the Natural Forest Standard or Social Carbon, which are more or even highly project specific, are possibly underestimated, as we mostly considered the general standard documents. In case of the Gold Standard, we could only evaluate the relative general Land Use and Forests framework document and the A/R re-quirements, as there are so far no documents available for REDD or IFM project types. Further, some indicators (e.g. market leakage) are not applicable to A/R projects.


26

Based on the results in section 5, we can conclude that no standard alone reaches a level of performance (i.e. no standard reaches more than 80% across all criteria) that would satisfy the principles and expectations of BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch.

For this reason, BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch are of the opinion that there is no 'best in class' standard and the analysis results have to be seen as a ranking of second best standards only. A sound standard with regard to the criteria ‘climate integrity´, ‘biodiversity conservation´, ‘human and community rights, stakeholder participation & sustainable community development’ and ‘project viability and UNFCCC/jurisdictional compatibility’ can only be obtained by adding further criteria to the existing standards, such as nesting in jurisdictional programs and guidelines on human rights.

The VCS and ACR are the only standards that achieve >80% in the category climate integrity. Con-sequently, these two standards are the only two that are acceptable to BMUB/IKI and Ger-manwatch with regard to their criteria for carbon accounting.

However, the absence of strong provisions for biodiversity conservation, human and community rights, stakeholder participation and community development and other aspects that aim to guarantee long-term project viability do not make them a good choice if one is looking at benefits beyond carbon, at least not as standalone standards.

In the category ‘biodiversity conservation’, the Plan Vivo, Natural Forest Standard, CCBS and the Gold Standard reach the level of ambition set by BMUB/IKI and Germanwatch. In the category ‘human and community rights, stakeholder participation and sustainable community develop-ment’, the same four standards reach the 80% threshold.

When combined with the CCBS, the VCS and ACR provide the best possible results in our analysis (VCS + CCBS is marginally better than ACR + CCBS), as Plan Vivo and the Gold Standard are standalone standards.

The VCS however does provide a streamlined process for joint validation and verification with the CCBS, which is a further advantage and has very recently taken over the management of the CCBS. Further, as laid out in section 2.3, VCS and the combination of VCS + CCBS certification are dom-inating the voluntary over-the-counter market and thus seem to be the preference of forest carbon project developers and carbon credit buyers.

However, when set against the expectations and principles of BMUB and Germanwatch, the combination of standards still leaves drawbacks that need to be addressed by additional guidelines.

A major drawback of both the VCS and the ACR in terms of climate integrity is the non-permanence issue beyond the crediting period. Both the VCS and the ACR (which uses the VCS non-permanence risk tool) attempt to include this risk by demanding that the non-permanence risk analysis is done for a time horizon of 100 years. Thereby, the risk of reversals over a 100 year period is accounted for through the buffer reserve. While this is a pragmatic approach, it is from the authors’ perspective highly doubtful that the project developer can and will be able to accu-rately estimate the project risk over a 100 year time horizon (neither will the validation and verifica-tion body be able to do so). As such, this approach is inferior to non-permanence risk approach that request accountability for reversals beyond the crediting period over e.g. a period of 100 years. However, the only standard that requires accountability beyond the crediting period is the Rainforest Standard, which allows for different approaches such as insurance, buyer liability or the ton-year approach. The Rainforest Standard is rather new standard (2012) with no validated pro-jects yet. As such, none of these non-permanence concepts has been tested, also with regard to their practicability and acceptance by project developers and carbon credit buyers. Moreover,


27

buyer liability seems to be limited for carbon credits on the voluntary market given the relative volatility of market actors. Finally, in case of small project portfolios, even buffer reserves may fail if several projects are subject to larger reversals. To build confidence in standards ability to ensure climate integrity, standards would be well advised to report on the status of their buffer reserves.

Another possible drawback of VCS+CCBS or ACR+CCBS certification is that – by experience – it will require projects of scale (in terms of emission reductions). For projects that generate com-paratively few emission reductions, the project development and validation and verification costs may result in the project becoming financially unfeasible (e.g. high project development and mon-itoring costs). Consequently, for such projects, BMUB/IKI could allow standards such as e.g. the Plan Vivo Standard or for A/R projects the Gold Standard (if certification costs here are less than for VCS + CCBS) and demand that a certain set essential additional climate integrity indicators must be met to cover (current) perceived insufficiencies in the standards’ design (both standards score good to very good under the biodiversity and human rights, stakeholder participation and sustainable community development criterion). In principal, such an approach is comparable to some extent to the CDM, where simplified small-scale methodologies were developed that ena-bled smaller projects to achieve CDM certification.


28

7 References and standard documents

Diaz, D.; Hamilton, K. and Johnson, E. (2011) State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2011: From Cano-py to Currency. Ecosystem Marketplace. Available online at www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2963.pdf

Espinoza Llanos, R and Feather, C (2011). The reality of REDD+ in Peru: Between theory and prac-tice. AIDESEP, FPP. Available online at http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/11/reality-redd-peru-between-theory-and-practice-website-english-low-res.pdf

Fraisse, M.C. and Germanis K. (2012) Forest carbon & forest management standards comparison: field perspective. Produced by NEPCon and commissioned by Rainforest Alliance. Available online at www.nepcon.net/ files/ resource_1/ pictures/ SERVICES/ Field%20perspective-Forest%20carbon%20and%20FM%20stnadards%20comparis on%20(2012).pdf

Goldstein, A., Gonzalez, G. and Peters-Stanley, M. (2014) Turning over a New Leaf: State of the For-est Carbon Markets 2014. Ecosystem Marketplace. Available online at http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_4770.pdf

Hamilton, K.; Chokkalingam, U. and Bendana, M. (2010) State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2009: Taking Root & Branching Out. Available online at http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2384.pdf

Held, C.; Tennigkeit, T.; Techel, G. and Seebauer M. (2011) Analyse und Bewertung von Waldprojek-ten und entsprechender Standards zur freiwilligen Kompensation von Treibhausgasemissi-onen (full report only available in German). UNIQUE forestry consultants GmbH, Freiburg. Commissioned by the German Emissions Trading Authority on behalf of the German Feder-al Environmental Agency. Available online at http://www.uba.de/uba-info-medien/3966.html

Merger, E. (2008) Forestry Carbon Standards 2008. A comparison of the leading standards in the voluntary carbon market and the state of climate forestation projects. Published by: Car-bon Positive http://www.carbonpositive.net/. Available online at http://www.carbonfix.info/chameleon/outbox/public/55/Forestry-Carbon-Standards-Canterbury-University-Eduard-Merger-2008.pdf

Merger, E. and Williams A.(2008) Comparison of Carbon Offset Standards for Climate Forestation Projects participating in the Voluntary Carbon Market. University of Canterbury, Christ-church, New Zealand. Available online at http://www.fore.canterbury.ac.nz/research/

Merger, E. and Pistorius T. (2011) Effectiveness and legitimacy of forest carbon standards in the OTC voluntary carbon market. Carbon Balance and Management, 6:4. Available online at http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/6/1/4

Peters-Stanley, M.; Hamilton, K.; Yin, D. (2012) Leveraging the Landscape: State of the Forest Car-bon Markets 2012. Ecosystem Marketplace. Available online at www.forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=3242

Peters-Stanley, M.; Gonzalez, G. and Yin D. (2013) Covering New Ground: State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2013.Ecosystem Marketplace. Available online at http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/SOFCM-full-report.pdf

Roe, S.; Streck, C.; Pritchard, L.; Costenbader, J. (2013) Safeguards in REDD+ and Forest Carbon Standards: A Review of Social, Environmental and Procedural Concepts and Application. Climate Focus. Available online at www.climatefocus.com/documents/files/safeguards.pdf


29

Standard documents

The American Carbon Registry Standard, Version 4.0, January 2015

The American Carbon Registry Forest Carbon Project Standard, Version 2.1, November 2010.

American Carbon Registry Nested REDD+ Standard, Version 1.0, October 2012

CCBA. 2013. Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards Third Edition. CCBA, Arlington, VA, USA.

December, 2013. At: www.climate-standards.org

CCBA. 2013. Rules for the Use of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards (December 2013). CCBA, Arlington, VA, USA. December, 2013. At: www.climate-standards.org

The Gold Standard Framework for Land Use & Forests. Version 1, November 2013a.

The Gold Standard Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) Requirements. Version 0.9, August 2013b.

Natural Forest Standard Requirements. Version 1.2, March 2014.

Guidance for NFS Standard Requirements. Version 1.3, March 2014

Natural Forest Standard Risk Buffer Policy Version 1.0, November 2013

Approved NFS Methodology AM001.1. Approved by the Natural Forest Standard Technical Panel 22nd August 2013.

The Plan Vivo Standard, Version 2013.

The Plan Vivo Guidance Manual, February 2012.

Plan Vivo Procedures Manual: for the registration and oversight of Plan Vivo projects and issuance of Plan Vivo Certificates. VersionJune2015

Plan Vivo Guidance Document: Reducing Locally-Driven Deforestation. Draft for consultation, October 2014.

THE RAINFOREST STANDARD. Version 2.1, December 2012

SOCIALCARBON STANDARD. VERSION 5.0, JULY 2013

SOCIALCARBON Standard Indicators for Forest Projects. Version 2.1, June, 2011

Indicators for an Amazon REDD Project. Version 1.1, November 2013

VCS Standard. Version 3.4, October 2013

VCS Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) Requirements. Version 3.4, October 2013

VCS Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) Requirements. Version 3.2, October 2014.


30

8 Annex 8.1 Analysis table

No Yes

VCS ACR

Plan

Vivo

Natural

Forest

Std

Rainforest

Std CCBS

Social

Carbon Gold Std

AdditionalityThe standard demands an ‘additionality’ test using an

investment analysis method0 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5

The standard demands a non‐permanence risk analysis and

consequent deductions for non‐permanence risk when

calculating net GHG emission reductions

0 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 5

Projects with a high non‐permanence risk cannot undergo

validation0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upfront crediting is strictly limited or not allowed 0 5 5 5 0 5 5 n.a. n.a. 0

The standard operates a (pooled) buffer account or uses

other safeguards, meant to provide permanence during the

crediting period.

0 5 5 5 5 5 5 n.a. n.a. 5

The standard undertakes measures to reduce the risk of

non‐permanence beyond the crediting period0 3 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 0

The standard ensures permanence beyond the project

crediting period0 10 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0

The standard demands accountability of activity leakage

and consequent deductions for activity leakage when


0 5 5 5 0 5 5 5 0 5

The standard demands accountability of market leakage

and consequent deductions for market leakage when


0 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 n.a.

The standard demands independently validated

methodologies for GHG accounting0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

The standard demands independent third party validation

and verification of monitoring results3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

The standard demands the application of the principle of

conservativeness (for baseline establishment, etc.)

0 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3

The standard demands an uncertainty assessment and

consequent deductions for uncertainty when calculating

net GHG emission reductions

0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

The standard demands the inclusion of all relevant carbon

pools and GHGs, unless they are deemed ‘de minimis’

0 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3

The standard demands that double counting is not allowed0 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 3

The standard demands at least a ‘no harm’ approach to

biodiversity conservation 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

The standard demands a biodiversity or environmental

impact assessment and in consequence the development

and implementation of a plan to mitigate these impacts

0 5 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 5

The standard demands the generation of additional

measureable benefits for biodiversity conservation

(includes the development of a biodiversity baseline and

project scenario)

0 10 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10

The standard demands the measuring, reporting and

verification of biodiversity benefits0 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5

The standard demands a ‘no harm’ approach to community

development 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

The standard explicitly demands the recognition of human

rights0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

The standard demands a social impact assessment which

should include the identification of vulnerable groups and

the potential for human rights violations and in

consequence the development and implementation of a

plan to mitigate these impacts

0 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 5

The standard demands the generation of additional

measureable benefits for community development

(includes the development of a community baseline and

project scenario)

0 10 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10

The standard demands the measuring, reporting and

verification of community benefits0 5 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 5

The standard demands the application of free, prior and

informed consent during REDD+ project development and

implementation

0 10 0 0 10 10 10 10 0 10

The standard demands a public, inclusive and transparent

process for project development and implementation

0 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

The standard demands the establishment of a grievance

redress & feedback mechanism to solve disputes, including

the option to bring forward any infringments and violations

of human rights for legal prosecution.

0 5 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 5

The standard demands a detailed management plan to

show how the drivers of deforestation and forest

degradation are credibly addressed.

0 5 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0

The standard demands proof of clear carbon ownership

(land registry, lease contract, etc.) 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 5

The standard demands a risk analysis and risk management

plan0 3 1 0 3 3 0 3 0 3

The standard (association) offers a jurisdictional framework

for nesting projects or any other framework that allows for

integration of projects into larger scale REDD+ programmes

0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

The standard demands adherence to and covers the

Cancún safeguards on REDD+0 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0

For Jurisdictional frameworks: The standard supports

integration with UNFCCC COP decisions on REDD+ (e.g.

Warsaw Framework for REDD‐plus)

0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Biodiversity

conservation

Biodiversity

impacts

Human and community rights, stakeholder

participation and sustainable community

developmen

t

Community

impacts &

recognition of

human rights

Stakeholder &

community

process

Project viability & UNFCCC

/ jurisdictional

compatibility

Other

Jurisdictional &

UNFCCC

Criteria Category Indicators

Score Standards

Clim

ate integrity

Permanence

Leakage

General carbon

accounting

quality

assurance


31

... did you find this publication interesting and helpful?

You can support the work of Germanwatch with a donation to:

Bank fuer Sozialwirtschaft AG

BIC/Swift: BFSWDE33BER

IBAN: DE33 1002 0500 0003 212300

Thank you for your support!

Observing. Analysing. Acting.

For Global Equity and the Preservation of Livelihoods.

GermanwatchFollowing the motto “Observing, Analysing, Acting”, Germanwatch has been actively promoting global equity and the preservation of livelihoods since 1991. In doing so, we focus on the politics and economics of the North and their worldwide consequences. The situation of marginalised people in the South is the starting point of our work. Together with our members and supporters as well as with other actors in civil society, we intend to represent a strong lobby for sustainable development. We attempt to approach our goals by advocating for the prevention of dangerous climate change, for food securi-ty, and compliance of companies with human rights.

Germanwatch is funded by membership fees, donations, grants from “Stiftung Zukunftsfähigkeit” (Foundation for Sustainability) as well as grants from various other pub-lic and private donors.

You can also help achieve the goals of Germanwatch by becoming a member or by donating to:

Bank für Sozialwirtschaft AG, BIC/Swift: BFSWDE33BER IBAN: DE33 1002 0500 0003 2123 00

For further information, please contact one of our offices

Germanwatch – Bonn Office Kaiserstr. 201 D-53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49 (0)228 / 60492-0 Fax: +49 (0)228 / 60492-19

Germanwatch – Berlin Office Stresemannstr. 72 D-10963 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 (0)30 / 2888 356-0 Fax: +49 (0)30 / 2888 356 -1

E-mail: [email protected]

or visit our website:

www.germanwatch.org

Documents

A comparison of carbon market standards for REDD+ projects · A comparison of carbon market standards for REDD+ projects GERMANWATCH 3 Content List of tables and figures